Keeping the Ring at the Center by Balancing Masses Using a Force

Table and Finding the Equilibrant Vector using Analytical and

Graphical Techniques
Bienica Yzabelle G. Tinte, Krisha Kai A. Cadangen, Adrianne C. Rilloraza *, Jaime S. Rivera, Karen H.
Reguine, Wilbur H. Galarion
Department of Physical Sciences, University of the Philippines – Baguio, Governor Pack Road, Baguio City
*
adriannerilloraza@gmail.com.ph

Abstract
This paper focuses on finding the magnitude of the equilibrant vector that keeps
the ring at the center of the force table analytically and graphically, to determine
which of the two techniques is more accurate in determining vector quantities
such as force, given enough data and equipment to do so.

With the constant variable, hanging mass 1 or the equilibrant, the task is to find
the masses at a certain angle to balance the set-up. With the found masses, the
experimental equilibrant must either by computed from the dependent masses or
graphed with a definite scale then measure the resultant vector.

Upon further calculation and analysis, it was found out that the graphical
method is more accurate on the magnitude in 4 out of 5 cases, while the
analytical technique is more accurate on direction in 4 out of 5 cases. It was then
concluded that the graphical method is more accurate only when fewer vectors
are measured, which is probably because of the uncertainties that add up during
the graphing process. Other errors in the experiment may be credited to the force
table being imbalance and inaccurate, in some manner, and other parallax errors.

1. Introduction
A vector is a physical entity having magnitude and direction. It is usually represented by an arrow that
determines its magnitude and direction. Force is a vector quantity, a push or pull in an object, in which the
experiment is all about. It requires vector addition to combine vectors, and it obeys certain rules in algebra. Adding
vectors can be done in different ways. The sum is called as Resultant Vector.
For the experiment, a force table will be used with a constant hanging mass that would serve as the equilibrant.
The researchers will then adjust other masses to different and varying directions and magnitudes to balance the
system.
Graphically, vectors could be added by placing the head of one vector (B) to tail of the vector (A), this is called
the head-to-tail method. Parallelogram Method involves drawing imaginary lines parallel to the vectors to form a
parallelogram, where the diagonal serves as its resultant. The magnitude is easily determined by measuring the
length of the resultant, and the direction is the angle measure from the positive x-axis to the vector.
Analytically, vector addition can also be carried out using components of vectors. The x-component and y-
component of a vector can be determined using simple trigonometry (SOH-CAH-TOA) where a diagonal vector is
always the hypotenuse. The magnitude of the resultant can be calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem on the
vector components, while the direction is the inverse tangent function of the sum of all y-components divided by the
sum of all x-components in one or more vectors.
The equilibrant or the anti-resultant, as called in this experiment, is the vector that balances all the other vectors
in the system. It is determined as the vector directly opposite the resultant vector of the set of vectors, but with the
equal magnitude.
This experiment is centered on verifying the methods of vector algebra using experimental, graphical and
analytical techniques, ensuring the relationship between the three.
2. Methodology
The goal in the experiment is to keep the ring at the center by the variations of magnitudes and positions of the
hanging masses involved. The researchers performed five cases. Each of which vary in the number of hanging
masses observed. In every case, the magnitude of the hanging masses was measured using a digital weighing scale
after determining its angle on the force table plate (see figure 1).

Figure 1. A force table

As for the preliminaries of the experiment, the force table was checked with a bubble level to ensure that it is in
level. A fixed hanging mass 1 of 200 grams inclusive of the mass of the pan and is positioned at 210° on the force
table was attached to a string connected to the ring. The said hanging mass remained undisturbed throughout the five
cases performed.
For case 1, there are two hanging masses observed. To center the ring, hanging mass 2 was adjusted in its
magnitude and position. In the second case, 3 hanging masses are involved, the hanging mass 1 and hanging masses
2 and 3 which are of different magnitudes and positions. Likewise, the two hanging masses are adjusted into
different angles to KTRATC. Using the setup obtained in case 2, only hanging mass 3 was adjusted from at 10°. But
since the ring was not kept centered at the said angle, its magnitude was adjusted. As for case 4, hanging masses 2
and 3 were set perpendicular with each other. Same with the previous cases, the hanging masses’ magnitudes were
adjusted until the ring was kept centered. For the fifth case, 3 different pulleys were used and varied in magnitudes
and directions to maintain the ring at the center. A total of four hanging masses are observed.
During the experiment, it would be noticeable that the strings attached between the ring and pulleys are slightly
elevated from the force table plate. The researchers placed a magnetic bubble level on the string to get the accurate
angle or position.
Two more trials were done. All hanging masses were removed; a block of wood of unknown mass was used in
place of hanging mass 1. In the first trial, 3 masses were present in the setup. The two added hanging masses are of
equal magnitude and adjusted in position or even so in magnitude so long as are kept equal to KTRATC. From the
setup in first trial, the hanging masses’ magnitudes are increased equally. Likewise, the positions were adjusted to
KTRATC again. After conducting the two trials, the actual mass of the block was measured and the calculated mass
was computed from the gathered data.
For the graphical method, the magnitude and direction of the hanging mass 1 was first graphed with a scale of 1
g is to 0.25 mm using a ruler, while the angle follows the measure of a standard protractor. The aim of the graphical
technique is to find the resultant vector of all the other masses such that it would be at the opposite side of the
equilibrant (hanging mass 1) but with the same magnitude. The other masses were then graphed with the same scale
as the first. It doesn’t matter which vector will be graphed fist, as long as the tail of the first connects to the head of
the second, whereas the tail of the previously graphed arrow serves as the origin for the next vector.
The resultant vector can be graphed by connecting the origin of the Cartesian plane or the head of the hanging
mass 1 and 2 with the tail of the last vector or hanging mass. Then, using the same equipment, the magnitude and
angle of the resultant is measured from the origin.
3. Results and Discussion
After conducting the experiment and computing and graphing the vectors that balance the ring at the center of
the force table, the following results were gathered and organized.

Table 1. Experimental data

Hanging mass 1 Hanging mass 2 Hanging mass 3 Hanging mass 4
Case
M(g) P(º) M(g) P(º) M(g) P(º) M(g) P(º)
1 200.00±0.01 210±1 201.14±0.01 28±1
2 200.00±0.01 210±1 280.15±0.01 53±1 91.46±0.01 304±1
3 200.00±0.01 210±1 211.19±0.01 53±1 80.49±0.01 294±1
4 200.00±0.01 210±1 97.54±0.01 92±1 173.68±0.01 2±1
5 200.00±0.01 210±1 185.11±0.01 79±1 99.18±0.01 302±1 102.07±0.01 1±1

Table 1 shows that it is possible to keep the ring at the center with different numbers of hanging masses and with
those weights having different masses and angled differently for each case.

Table 2. Percentage error of equilibrant (through calculation)

Theoretical Analytical Error (%)

Case
M(g) P(o) M(g) P(o) M(g) P(o)
1 200.00±0.01 210±1 201.14±0.01 208±1 0.57% 0.95%
2 200.00±0.01 210±1 264.89±0.01 214±1 32.45% 1.90%
3 200.00±0.01 210±1 186.01±0.01 210±1 7.00% 0%
4 200.00±0.01 210±1 170.90±0.01 210±1 14.55% 0%
5 200.00±0.01 210±1 214.11±0.01 208±1 7.06% 0.95%

The data on table 2 is imprecise; this could be attributed to the force table being uneven even after it was
calibrated with a bubble level. Parallax errors could also be the reason for the large deviation between the theoretical
and analytical data.

Table 3. Percentage error of experiment equilibrant (through graphing)

Theoretical Graphical Error (%)
Case
M(g) P(o) M(g) P(o) M(g) P(o)
1 200±1 210±1 201±1 208±1 0.57 0.95
2 200±1 210±1 248±1 213±1 24.00 1.43
3 200±1 210±1 188±1 211±1 6.00 0.48
4 200±1 210±1 192±1 206±1 4.00 1.90
5 200±1 210±1 228±1 205±1 14.00 2.38

The table above shows could be concluded precise if only the uncertainty of the measuring device is considered.
The noticeable errors between the graphical and theoretical data may be credited to the ruler and protractor used for
graphing. Also, the scale used to convert the mass to centimeter measure does not satisfy the devices’ uncertainties.

Table 4. Unknown mass

Hanging mass 1 Hanging mass 2 Mass Mass Error
Trial
M(g) P(o) M(g) P(o) CALC (g) ACTUAL(g) (%)
1 211.6±0.01 355±1 211.62±0.01 156±1 105.96±0.01 13.68
2 226.72±0.01 102±1 226.72±0.01 312±1 117.33±0.01 122.75±0.01 4.42

The data on this table show that it is possible to determine the mass of an unknown object using the law of
vector addition. The large percentage error in the first trial can be attributed to the force table being unbalanced and
parallax errors.
 Upon comparison of the errors acquired from the analytical and graphical methods, one cannot possibly
conclude which of the two is a better method of finding the vector that would keep the ring at the center. However, it
could be observed that the graphical method is more accurate when measuring only two vectors than the analytical
method, 4 out of 5, according to tables 2 and 3. However, when the direction of the vectors is considered, the
analytical technique is more accurate in 4 out of 5 cases.
The law of vector analysis is verified through the experiment since both the analytical and the graphical
techniques’ results are relatively close also their percentage errors are close. The errors came from the uncertainties
on the non-uniform measurements on the force table and the measuring devices used for graphing the vectors that
might have reduced the accuracy of the results.

4. Conclusion
Based on the data above, it could be inferred that it is possible to attain and maintain the equilibrium of the ring
at the center even with different numbers of hanging masses pulled in varied magnitudes and directions. The huge
percentage error, in some cases, between the theoretical and analytical magnitude of the equilibrant implies that this
data in imprecise because of the different factors that contributed to the high percentage error. On the other hand, the
percentage error of the experimental equilibrant gathered, through graphing, lower percentage errors, thus resulting
to a more accurate set of data. Meanwhile, for the direction of the equilibrant, it was concluded that the analytical
technique is more accurate than the graphical technique.
Therefore, it could be said that the law of vector analysis supports the relationship between the analytical and
graphical results since their percentage error are relatively close to each other. For the avocation of the researchers,
it is recommendable to take notice of the measurements on the force table and the parallax errors that can contribute
to a less accurate result.

References
1. “Addition of Forces.” The Physics Classroom. N.p., n.d, Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
2. “The Meaning of Force.” The Physics Classroom. N.p., n.d, Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
3. “Lab 1 – Force Table.” Labs for College Physics. Web Assign. n.d, Web. 27 Feb. 2016.